Pheu Thai Against Educational Requirement For Constitution Drafting Assembly Selection

[Siam Simon]

Here we go again! The population was given the option of the 2007 constitution or "we" (the junta) "will stay in power indefinitely". It wouldn't be a bad move (except that it'd upset the generals) for PT to re-present the 2007 constitution to The People in a new referendum tomorrow. I'd bet my life savings on it getting a laughably low thumbs-up.

Nonsense.

Public was told that if the constitution was not endorsed in a referendum, an old constitution in a revised form would be put together. At no stage was it said that this constitution would be forced upon the people. At no stage did anyone say they planned to stay in power indefinitely. Of course it would have meant a delay in elections, but without an agreed upon constitution, that would have been impossible to avoid.

Fact is, the public was completely free to vote whichever they wanted to, and Thaksin and his chums were very much banking on them voting no, as it quite possibly would have given them the endorsement they required to stage an immediate come back.

As for you thinking the 2007 constitution if put to the people now would be turned down, i put it to you that 99% of the population could only give the vaguest of notions as to what is entailed in that constitution, or any other constitution for that matter.

Large swathes of the country were under martial law (including most of upcountry), where campaigning against the new charter was strictly prohibited. Politicians had to hang up their political boots and go back to the day job upcountry during that period.

And I put it to you that you do a great disservice to the majority of the population with your 99% jibe. Which seems to be the type of thing that most of this forum's right-wingers base their arguments on

[TAWP]

Which seems to be the type of thing that most of this forum's right-wingers base their arguments on

So anyone that oppose you and Thaksin is right-wing.

So you are trying to say that only left-wingers support Thaksin?

[phiphidon]

Thanks.

I think it's likely that in both cases, 1996 and 2007, some people chosen to be involved were chosen not, or at least not only, for their skills, but for their political persuasion.

To think that this time around will somehow be different, strikes me as being a little naive, especially when one considers what may well be at the heart of this drive.

In 2007 people were chosen purely because of their political bent - that is why the constitution needs to be changed!

[phiphidon]

Here we go again! The population was given the option of the 2007 constitution or "we" (the junta) "will stay in power indefinitely". It wouldn't be a bad move (except that it'd upset the generals) for PT to re-present the 2007 constitution to The People in a new referendum tomorrow. I'd bet my life savings on it getting a laughably low thumbs-up.

Nonsense.

Public was told that if the constitution was not endorsed in a referendum, an old constitution in a revised form would be put together. At no stage was it said that this constitution would be forced upon the people. At no stage did anyone say they planned to stay in power indefinitely. Of course it would have meant a delay in elections, but without an agreed upon constitution, that would have been impossible to avoid.

Fact is, the public was completely free to vote whichever they wanted to, and Thaksin and his chums were very much banking on them voting no, as it quite possibly would have given them the endorsement they required to stage an immediate come back.

As for you thinking the 2007 constitution if put to the people now would be turned down, i put it to you that 99% of the population could only give the vaguest of notions as to what is entailed in that constitution, or any other constitution for that matter.

Let me put it to you a hypothetical case. If the people had refused to accept the Junta written constitution until they had removed the clause that guaranteed the coup leaders amnesty what do you think the Junta would have done? Accept it, subject themselves to the courts, and allow free elections? No, I don't think so. I really don't know why you don't accept that the Junta weren't such the paragons of virtue you suggest they were.

It's one thing opposing everything Thaksin or Yingluck or the PTP do but why this love fest with the army?

[tlansford]

A transparent set of selection criteria would be a good start. Stacking the committee will result in loss of credibility, illegitimacy, lack of acceptance, and guaranteed further conflict.

Precisely.

And in my opinion, these is nothing transparent about this push from the PT for no or little educational requirement. I guarantee it's because they have certain people in mind, with which to do that stacking you speak of. Call me a cynic.

Ok, You're a cynic. Lets look at the two Constitution CDA compositions; (Please excuse the C & P from Wikipedia but it saves time and I have linked a case study by the Asian Human Rights Commission as well so you can dig the information out of there if you distrust Wikipedia in this case).

1996 CDA:

99 members being 76 deputies elected by citizens of 76 Chanagwats (Provinces) and 23 academicians from higher education institutes.

2007 CDA:

100 members, being 28 from the public service sector, 27 from the private sector, 23 from the social sector and 22 from the academic sector, or being 10 from the northern region, 68 from the central region, 12 from the eastern region and 10 from the southern region.

Note that the Military Junta became the Council for National Security, CNS. In reality the CNS appointed a 2000 member National Peoples Assembly, NPA. The NPA then selected 200 members of its assembly to be candidates for the Constitution Drafting Assembly. The CNS then selected 100 of the candidates for Royal appointment to the CDA. They would also pick the leader of the CDA. The CDA would then appoint 25 constitution writers and the CNS (Junta) would pick 10.

Therefore the Junta (CNS) had complete control over the writing of the Constitution.

Now which one do you think was more democratic? And which method is being used as a model for the new CDA?

I really think your fears of the PTP packing the CDA with educationally sub normal civilians with ulterior motives in mind is groundless.

http://www.hrschool....p/lesson49/188/ (Asian Human Rights Commission Case Study)

But then the populace voted on the constitution making it the law of the land.

Now they want a different biased bunch to rewrite it to benefit themselves.

There is little difference in the process at the bottom line.

A hand picked bunch of people are being aimed to do the job.

Don't for a minute imagine that the elected members will be left to chance,

if they go that route for 'appearances sake'.

[rixalex]

And I put it to you that you do a great disservice to the majority of the population with your 99% jibe. Which seems to be the type of thing that most of this forum's right-wingers base their arguments on

It's not a jibe. It comes down to the simple fact that the constitution is a massive document full of legal jargon that would require weeks of reading, assuming one could understand it all. I don't and i too, only have a vague notion of what is entailed - just the highlights really. And right wing, i am not, no matter how many times you label me such.

[phiphidon]

And I put it to you that you do a great disservice to the majority of the population with your 99% jibe. Which seems to be the type of thing that most of this forum's right-wingers base their arguments on

It's not a jibe. It comes down to the simple fact that the constitution is a massive document full of legal jargon that would require weeks of reading, assuming one could understand it all. I don't and i too, only have a vague notion of what is entailed - just the highlights really. And right wing, i am not, no matter how many times you label me such.

It's not that big, not weeks of reading by a long shot, or at least the english translation isn't and it isn't full of legal jargon (though this; mutatis mutandis is quite popular - it means 'the necessary changes having been made' apparently). There's a table of contents here

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/2007/ and it's pretty easy to find out what your (if you were Thai) rights (or lack of) are for example.

The Constitution itself is here for those interested;

http://www.asianlii....2007/1.html#C01.

[lannarebirth]

My view is there is almost always a hidden agenda going on. If PT is against educational requirement for those drafting, i believe if you dig deep enough you will find it has its roots not with any sense of we believe this simply out of principle, but rather we are saying this because we have certain people in mind who we want included but who couldn't be if there was a high educational requirement.

That may well be an angle from PT, and is worth looking into. But what about the bigger picture? Are people with crappy, non-law-related degrees any more qualified to make legal judgments than people with broad life experience? Or should this be restricted to people with sound legal nous?

I think if the aim is balance, less restrictions the better really, besides the obvious basic ones, ie no criminal record. Key point is those chosen, bring something to the table in terms of skill set. They need not all have the same skill set, ie they need not all be legal gurus.

I couldn't disagree more. Not only should they all be legal gurus, they should all be legal gurus that have a strong human rights record and an education in constitutional law from here and even more importantly elsewhere.

[rixalex]

It's not that big, not weeks of reading by a long shot, or at least the english translation isn't and it isn't full of legal jargon (though this; mutatis mutandis is quite popular - it means 'the necessary changes having been made' apparently). There's a table of contents here

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/2007/ and it's pretty easy to find out what your (if you were Thai) rights (or lack of) are for example.

The Constitution itself is here for those interested;

http://www.asianlii....2007/1.html#C01.

In one sitting, you may be right, it may take less than weeks, perhaps a day, but there are still 309 sections, and to fully absorb and understand the implications of them all, i suggest to you, would take a lot of time. My suggestion that only 1% of the population may have that time, indeed that inclination, to go through it all, was not the insult that siam simon made it into. Just being practical and realistic. Be interested to know what percentage of the population simon thinks have read it all and understand it all.

[Siam Simon]

My view is there is almost always a hidden agenda going on. If PT is against educational requirement for those drafting, i believe if you dig deep enough you will find it has its roots not with any sense of we believe this simply out of principle, but rather we are saying this because we have certain people in mind who we want included but who couldn't be if there was a high educational requirement.

That may well be an angle from PT, and is worth looking into. But what about the bigger picture? Are people with crappy, non-law-related degrees any more qualified to make legal judgments than people with broad life experience? Or should this be restricted to people with sound legal nous?

I think if the aim is balance, less restrictions the better really, besides the obvious basic ones, ie no criminal record. Key point is those chosen, bring something to the table in terms of skill set. They need not all have the same skill set, ie they need not all be legal gurus.

I couldn't disagree more. Not only should they all be legal gurus, they should all be legal gurus that have a strong human rights record and an education in constitutional law from here and even more importantly elsewhere.

That would be a pretty good way to go about it, but including a broad spectrum of society would give things better balance and grounding. Legal professionals can have a habit of disappearing up their own backsides at times.

[Siam Simon]

And I put it to you that you do a great disservice to the majority of the population with your 99% jibe. Which seems to be the type of thing that most of this forum's right-wingers base their arguments on

It's not a jibe. It comes down to the simple fact that the constitution is a massive document full of legal jargon that would require weeks of reading, assuming one could understand it all. I don't and i too, only have a vague notion of what is entailed - just the highlights really. And right wing, i am not, no matter how many times you label me such.

You define yourself as right wing in these discussions by your support of establishment authoritarianism and diminishment of the opinions of the masses. Maybe you take a softer view when looking at western democracies, but I just see that as small-minded and double standards. Edited March 11, 2012 by Siam Simon

[rixalex]

My view is there is almost always a hidden agenda going on. If PT is against educational requirement for those drafting, i believe if you dig deep enough you will find it has its roots not with any sense of we believe this simply out of principle, but rather we are saying this because we have certain people in mind who we want included but who couldn't be if there was a high educational requirement.

That may well be an angle from PT, and is worth looking into. But what about the bigger picture? Are people with crappy, non-law-related degrees any more qualified to make legal judgments than people with broad life experience? Or should this be restricted to people with sound legal nous?

I think if the aim is balance, less restrictions the better really, besides the obvious basic ones, ie no criminal record. Key point is those chosen, bring something to the table in terms of skill set. They need not all have the same skill set, ie they need not all be legal gurus.

I couldn't disagree more. Not only should they all be legal gurus, they should all be legal gurus that have a strong human rights record and an education in constitutional law from here and even more importantly elsewhere.

In terms in who actually sits down and writes the document, i think you have a point. In terms of whose input is sought, i think you are wrong.

[rixalex]

And I put it to you that you do a great disservice to the majority of the population with your 99% jibe. Which seems to be the type of thing that most of this forum's right-wingers base their arguments on

It's not a jibe. It comes down to the simple fact that the constitution is a massive document full of legal jargon that would require weeks of reading, assuming one could understand it all. I don't and i too, only have a vague notion of what is entailed - just the highlights really. And right wing, i am not, no matter how many times you label me such.

You define yourself as right wing in these discussions by your support of establishment authoritarianism and diminishment of the opinions of the masses. Maybe you take a softer view when looking at western democracies, but I just see that as small-mined and double standards.

I don't support establishment authoritarianism, nor do i support diminishment of the opinions of the masses. That is the negative spin you have applied to an opinion that differs from your own. Prime example of your spin in action is just here. I stated that in my opinion, 99% of the population will have just a vague notion of what the 2007 constitution entails and will have never read it, you take that as being some sort of right wing slur on Thai people.

[Siam Simon]

It's not that big, not weeks of reading by a long shot, or at least the english translation isn't and it isn't full of legal jargon (though this; mutatis mutandis is quite popular - it means 'the necessary changes having been made' apparently). There's a table of contents here

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/2007/ and it's pretty easy to find out what your (if you were Thai) rights (or lack of) are for example.

The Constitution itself is here for those interested;

http://www.asianlii....2007/1.html#C01.

In one sitting, you may be right, it may take less than weeks, perhaps a day, but there are still 309 sections, and to fully absorb and understand the implications of them all, i suggest to you, would take a lot of time. My suggestion that only 1% of the population may have that time, indeed that inclination, to go through it all, was not the insult that siam simon made it into. Just being practical and realistic. Be interested to know what percentage of the population simon thinks have read it all and understand it all.

Without getting into one of those daft semantics debates about what percentage of the population can recite the 2007 constitution word for word, most people I talk with have a pretty good idea about what's legal and what's illegal, and are aware of the more glaring changes to law made in said constitution, and have opinions about why those changes were made.

[lannarebirth]

That may well be an angle from PT, and is worth looking into. But what about the bigger picture? Are people with crappy, non-law-related degrees any more qualified to make legal judgments than people with broad life experience? Or should this be restricted to people with sound legal nous?

I think if the aim is balance, less restrictions the better really, besides the obvious basic ones, ie no criminal record. Key point is those chosen, bring something to the table in terms of skill set. They need not all have the same skill set, ie they need not all be legal gurus.

I couldn't disagree more. Not only should they all be legal gurus, they should all be legal gurus that have a strong human rights record and an education in constitutional law from here and even more importantly elsewhere.

In terms in who actually sits down and writes the document, i think you have a point. In terms of whose input is sought, i think you are wrong.

I love most of the input you've made in this forum but I strongly disagree. A constitution is a loose framework meant to empower all but not rich in detail. Courts decide the fine points, not the drafters of the constitution.

[rixalex]

It's not that big, not weeks of reading by a long shot, or at least the english translation isn't and it isn't full of legal jargon (though this; mutatis mutandis is quite popular - it means 'the necessary changes having been made' apparently). There's a table of contents here

http://www.asianlii....gis/const/2007/ and it's pretty easy to find out what your (if you were Thai) rights (or lack of) are for example.

The Constitution itself is here for those interested;

http://www.asianlii....2007/1.html#C01.

In one sitting, you may be right, it may take less than weeks, perhaps a day, but there are still 309 sections, and to fully absorb and understand the implications of them all, i suggest to you, would take a lot of time. My suggestion that only 1% of the population may have that time, indeed that inclination, to go through it all, was not the insult that siam simon made it into. Just being practical and realistic. Be interested to know what percentage of the population simon thinks have read it all and understand it all.

Without getting into one of those daft semantics debates about what percentage of the population can recite the 2007 constitution word for word, most people I talk with have a pretty good idea about what's legal and what's illegal, and are aware of the more glaring changes to law made in said constitution, and have opinions about why those changes were made.

Considering as i say, there are 309 sections, i stand by my remark that 99% of the population only has a vague notion of what the constitution entails, and maintain that to state such a thing, is not the right wing jibe or an insult that you decided to read it as, but merely a statement of fact... and a fact that goes not only for Thai people, but for the people of every country.

[rixalex]

I love most of the input you've made in this forum but I strongly disagree. A constitution is a loose framework meant to empower all but not rich in detail. Courts decide the fine points, not the drafters of the constitution.

I respectfully don't see how a constitution being the loose framework that it is, supplies reasoning to your argument that all those involved must be legal gurus. Speaks to the opposite argument, in my opinion.

[lannarebirth]

I love most of the input you've made in this forum but I strongly disagree. A constitution is a loose framework meant to empower all but not rich in detail. Courts decide the fine points, not the drafters of the constitution.

I respectfully don't see how a constitution being the loose framework that it is, supplies reasoning to your argument that all those involved must be legal gurus. Speaks to the opposite argument, in my opinion.

A Constitution should be elegant, empowering. establish powers and protections. It's not for farmers to decide, unless those farmers also have a grounding in constitutional law.

Hopefully the framers of this next constitution will borrow from those constitutions that have shown great longevity due to their construction, but I doubt it.

[rixalex]

I love most of the input you've made in this forum but I strongly disagree. A constitution is a loose framework meant to empower all but not rich in detail. Courts decide the fine points, not the drafters of the constitution.

I respectfully don't see how a constitution being the loose framework that it is, supplies reasoning to your argument that all those involved must be legal gurus. Speaks to the opposite argument, in my opinion.

A Constitution should be elegant, empowering. establish powers and protections. It's not for farmers to decide, unless those farmers also have a grounding in constitutional law.

Hopefully the framers of this next constitution will borrow from those constitutions that have shown great longevity due to their construction, but I doubt it.

Taking the argument to a bit of an extreme to suggest we have farmers doing the drafting, in between ploughing fields. It's not exactly what i meant.

[lannarebirth]

I love most of the input you've made in this forum but I strongly disagree. A constitution is a loose framework meant to empower all but not rich in detail. Courts decide the fine points, not the drafters of the constitution.

I respectfully don't see how a constitution being the loose framework that it is, supplies reasoning to your argument that all those involved must be legal gurus. Speaks to the opposite argument, in my opinion.

A Constitution should be elegant, empowering. establish powers and protections. It's not for farmers to decide, unless those farmers also have a grounding in constitutional law.

Hopefully the framers of this next constitution will borrow from those constitutions that have shown great longevity due to their construction, but I doubt it.

Taking the argument to a bit of an extreme to suggest we have farmers doing the drafting, in between ploughing fields. It's not exactly what i meant.

Well, who else doesn't have a college degree here? We know the 7-11 and Tesco clerks need one, such as it is.

[rixalex]

^ I don't necessarily have a problem with those involved in the drafting being required to have degrees. What i was in disagreement with you over was that they all be legal gurus.

[rubl]

Thanks.

I think it's likely that in both cases, 1996 and 2007, some people chosen to be involved were chosen not, or at least not only, for their skills, but for their political persuasion.

To think that this time around will somehow be different, strikes me as being a little naive, especially when one considers what may well be at the heart of this drive.

In 2007 people were chosen purely because of their political bent - that is why the constitution needs to be changed!

This is surely the most interesting reason for charter change I've seen in a long time. Beats the boring old reasoning on content which is mostly fairly limited as well

Edited March 11, 2012 by rubl

[phiphidon]

Thanks.

I think it's likely that in both cases, 1996 and 2007, some people chosen to be involved were chosen not, or at least not only, for their skills, but for their political persuasion.

To think that this time around will somehow be different, strikes me as being a little naive, especially when one considers what may well be at the heart of this drive.

In 2007 people were chosen purely because of their political bent - that is why the constitution needs to be changed!

This is surely the most interesting reason for charter change I've seen in a long time. Beats the boring old reasoning on content which is mostly fairly limited as well

Your glib remarks are to be expected but surely even you can accept that the 2007 constitution was written in a biased way and presented to the Thai citizens as a fait accompli. Can you share your wisdom on why you think 2007 constitution is such a democratic document that it doesn't need to be changed.

[longway]

^ There is only one driver to change the constitution in the time frame they have mandated and that is to use it open avenues for Thaksin to return without serving jail time or having to go through a lengthy sudelining while the legal wrangling of the cases against him go on, it is being done soley for his benefit.

[animatic]

^ There is only one driver to change the constitution in the time frame they have mandated and that is to use it open avenues for Thaksin to return without serving jail time or having to go through a lengthy sudelining while the legal wrangling of the cases against him go on, it is being done soley for his benefit.

Exactly,

there is no over-riding need for ANYONE else except Thasksin to make these changes.

[sparebox2]

If we only allows smart and rich people write the law, they will only write it in such a way that benefit smart and rich people.

Example: Tax examption for life for people with a overseas degree to promote and incentivise learning.

Example: Full scholarship for student who speak languages (Chinese, English, Thai).

Example: Tax free for saving account > 10 million Baht, to attract and promote saving, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.

The stupid, poor, hadicaps etc loose out.

Hence we need the stupid, the poor, the handicap, the women, etc. to be well represented, to protect their interest. These people are 99% of Thai population.

Edited March 11, 2012 by sparebox2

[rubl]

Thanks.

I think it's likely that in both cases, 1996 and 2007, some people chosen to be involved were chosen not, or at least not only, for their skills, but for their political persuasion.

To think that this time around will somehow be different, strikes me as being a little naive, especially when one considers what may well be at the heart of this drive.

In 2007 people were chosen purely because of their political bent - that is why the constitution needs to be changed!

This is surely the most interesting reason for charter change I've seen in a long time. Beats the boring old reasoning on content which is mostly fairly limited as well

Your glib remarks are to be expected but surely even you can accept that the 2007 constitution was written in a biased way and presented to the Thai citizens as a fait accompli. Can you share your wisdom on why you think 2007 constitution is such a democratic document that it doesn't need to be changed.

Since I normally refrain from giving reason why or why not the charter needs changing, I think it would be more fair for you to give sound reasoning why the 2007 constitution is to be condemned on contents rather than how it was conceived, or how some see it as having been conceived.

BTW 'glib' (as in 'fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow OCD') ? From the man who wrote 'why complain about proposals even before they are accepted'?

Edited March 11, 2012 by rubl

[tlansford]

^ There is only one driver to change the constitution in the time frame they have mandated and that is to use it open avenues for Thaksin to return without serving jail time or having to go through a lengthy sudelining while the legal wrangling of the cases against him go on, it is being done soley for his benefit.

what changes to the charter are necessary to do that?

[longway]

^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook.

Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand.

There will be people giving alot of thought to do it; and how to achieve the changes necessary.

Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?

[Siam Simon]

^ Not sure why you are asking me, but anything related to changing the judical system and its verdicts; some of the Nitarat groups proposals have gone down that route, KPI came up with ideas of re-trying Thaksin, so that could well be a second prong the PT can use to look for ways to get him off the hook.

Other things would be for pushing for changes on how much influence the government has on the militarty command structure and its organisation , as a indirect way of exerting control and domination all the power structures in Thailand.

There will be people giving alot of thought to do it; and how to achieve the changes necessary.

Do you think Thaksin is not looking for a way to get back without answering the charges against him?

I suspect Thaksin is very nervous about returning anytime soon, and won't be doing so prematurely.He will want reconciliation of some sort with all his major opponents. He currently has a very large target on his back.